Accuracy of non Keith designed bullets in 260 to 300 gr.

[Changeling]

I realize that a great many people here like the Keith style bullets but I would like this posting to discuss the non Keith style bullets such as LBT, SSK, and relative designs.
I'm interested in what creates accuracy (opinions) in this line of bullets relative to "Hunting", regarding meplat size, nose design (LFN, WFN, WLN, Truncated cone, whatever) , bearing length, etc,.

There accuracy potential is a great part of this question relative to the "velocity" necessary to attain accuracy in relation to the bullets weight.
I have never actually read a discussion of a LFN vs WFN vs Truncated cone or whatever showing logical reasons why one does what it does!

[Blammer]

what caliber? 44? 45? 358?

[RobS]

I've shot LBT's and it depends on what application you are looking at. From a revolver the LFN and WFN designs from 0-35 yards are equal regarding accuracy. Obviously the WFN will have a larger wound channel and if that is an absolute to a person’s intent the WFN will be a direction that such person gravitates towards. When an individual starts to extend distances with a revolver, or even a lever action for that matter, one may see a bit of accuracy fall off with the WFN design at 50 yards and as the bullet reaches out further say at 100 yards there becomes a greater chance for this design to lack on accuracy. One thing for sure the LFN design will give better trajectory at the longer ranges vs a WFN (a ballistic turd so to speak) so that is something to consider as well when deciding on bullet design.

I also found that between the two bullets the LFN was a bullet that worked better at a variety of velocity ranges. The WFN would start to shine at the upper-mid loads and just gets better on the route to max loads. If a person wants a bullet that they can shoot easier loads from with very good accuracy then the LFN will out perform. If that is not the intent and the bullet is going to be pushed hard then both designs will perform accurately as to one or the other.

If a person is intending on using the LBT bullets in a lever action then feeding problems are more eminent with the WFN designs vs the LFN and with the extended range potential of a lever action the LFN is a better option IMHO.

Should a person plan on taking long shots with a revolver or plan on doubling up on reloading for the combination of a revolver and a lever action then the LFN is an easier bullet to work in both platforms.

My vote is for a LFN in the 45 caliber as the nose is wide enough to create a very decent wound channel and yet have the design that will perform at a longer range more readily. I also shoot the same rounds from a revolver/lever action so that would also persuade my direction as to which design.

A truncated cone typically has a ratio that by design has a smaller meplat to bullet diameter vs a LFN LBT design and it will give you a bullet that on a regular consensus among many shooters that performs well (accurately) and has a modest meplat for many hunting applications.

FWIW…………………and I hope this give a bit of insight to practicality of intended application and of firearm platform.

[jh45gun]

Why are you flogging a dead horse you already asked this question back June 1st or at least it was close enough to this question to get some answers???


]Bullet options other than keith?
I am really interested in my options (Accuracy) for bullets other than the Keith style (45 LC), I now have 2 Keith style molds and would like some input into the manufacturers of really great molds (Large Flat nose) other than the Keith style, such as LBT, others, I don't know of? Please, no tumble lube bullets/ideas.

[felix]

LFN without question if shooting for distance with speed, assuming a max meplat of 70 percent which is typical of Veral's design. Normal/Standard Keith's have 62 percent meplat and never feed as easily as a LFN. Ogival truncated cones work very well also, and shoot just as good as a LFN when the truncated cone has a secant ogive, such as RanchDog's typical design. ... felix

[Lloyd Smale]

Ive allways had better luck with an lfn then any other design. Close range, long range, fast or slow. You occasionaly will find a gun that likes swcs, kieths or wfns at a certain distance or speed but for me lfns hands down win the accuracy game.

[Bret4207]

IME the more unsupported nose you have the more critical alignment and proper fit become. I don't know what you mean by "hunting accuracy" but I prefer all my boolits go in the same spot, or as close to it as I can get. Someone somewhere probably has a a mathematical formula that shows a comparison of bearing length to unsupported nose length to twist/velocity. That's beyond my pay grade, but alignment and fit do play a major part in the end result. Very easy to show too.

[Ed K]

If I fire a "non Keith designed bullet" vertically, would either a slow or fast powder minimize the chance of it falling on my head if the wind were gusty but the sun was setting?

[44man]

I have no problems shooting a WFN to extreme distances, 400 yards to 500 meters. That is with an 80% meplat.
But even in the .44, I see little difference in deer killing when using either the WLN or WFN. I see no difference in the .45 either.
Anyway I would recommend the WLN if you have a question about accuracy even if unfounded. Or the RNFP like the Lee boolits, they shoot great and kill deer as dead as you want them, unless you like to see meat squirm when you BBQ! [smilie=l:
There is a point where more meplat is not needed. I figure about 80% is the limit and under 70% is too small.
Most of the molds I have made, Whitworth calls "almost WFN." There is no need to go larger. They cut a straight path through 37" of soaked phone books.

[44man]

IME the more unsupported nose you have the more critical alignment and proper fit become. I don't know what you mean by "hunting accuracy" but I prefer all my boolits go in the same spot, or as close to it as I can get. Someone somewhere probably has a a mathematical formula that shows a comparison of bearing length to unsupported nose length to twist/velocity. That's beyond my pay grade, but alignment and fit do play a major part in the end result. Very easy to show too.
Hey, my friend, are you really agreeing with me? :Fire:

[Changeling]

Caliber is 44 and 45, in my mind just not on the paper.

The only problem I have with the WFN and WLN designs from LBT is they have a meplat of .360 (80% of .454) and .340 (80% of .430) witch everyone but 44 man and Veral Smith says they have trouble with accuracy at longer ranges, however not a lot of people have mentioned actual numbers when they refer to "longer range". On this posting Blammer says he believes 100 yd, starts breaking down accuracy at 100yds, I've heard this a lot.
Jim says he gets accuracy out to 4 and 500 yd along with Veral Smith.
As many times as I have seen this question asked rarely does anyone specify a distance by saying XXX yds.
Do you see why I am concerned and wonder what is going on?

I'd be happy with a .340 meplat, problem, people making .45 caliber molds for some reason want to put .310/.320/.330 on them same as they put on .44 caliber or even .41, only know of one maker using the bigger meplats. I think thay do this because they think it was the original Keith meplat on the .44, however it was .275.

Bearing surface as Bret defined was a really good point, name a mold maker that gives specifications. About the only thing they offer is the worst drawings in the world, this is what they use to sell there product!
In my opinion if you purchase something in the price range some some of the mold makers want I don't think it is asking to much to have a description attached to it and preferably a drawing giving full specifications after all its the specifications and capability you are buying.

Have to go find my dead horse, and beat his butt some more, LOL.

Whoops almost forgot Ed K, that can't be figured with out the phase of the moon.

[Bret4207]

Hey, my friend, are you really agreeing with me? :Fire:

Not that I know of. Anything in my post is stuff I've said for several years. Could it be YOU are agreeing with ME?:veryconfu

[44man]

Caliber is 44 and 45, in my mind just not on the paper.

The only problem I have with the WFN and WLN designs from LBT is they have a meplat of .360 (80% of .454) and .340 (80% of .430) witch everyone but 44 man and Veral Smith says they have trouble with accuracy at longer ranges, however not a lot of people have mentioned actual numbers when they refer to "longer range". On this posting Blammer says he believes 100 yd, starts breaking down accuracy at 100yds, I've heard this a lot.
Jim says he gets accuracy out to 4 and 500 yd along with Veral Smith.
As many times as I have seen this question asked rarely does anyone specify a distance by saying XXX yds.
Do you see why I am concerned and wonder what is going on?

I'd be happy with a .340 meplat, problem, people making .45 caliber molds for some reason want to put .310/.320/.330 on them same as they put on .44 caliber or even .41, only know of one maker using the bigger meplats. I think thay do this because they think it was the original Keith meplat on the .44, however it was .275.

Bearing surface as Bret defined was a really good point, name a mold maker that gives specifications. About the only thing they offer is the worst drawings in the world, this is what they use to sell there product!
In my opinion if you purchase something in the price range some some of the mold makers want I don't think it is asking to much to have a description attached to it and preferably a drawing giving full specifications after all its the specifications and capability you are buying.

Have to go find my dead horse, and beat his butt some more, LOL.

Whoops almost forgot Ed K, that can't be figured with out the phase of the moon.
It is very hard to measure a meplat because of ogive taper but the .44, 320 gr LBT WLN and my 330 gr clone both measure .345". Might be closer to .340 but the caliper slips off the edges. A WFN will be larger of course.

[felix]

Jim and Veral use fast twist guns. ... felix

[Themoose]

I'm using a LBT 280 LFN for two 44 mag rifles... I have been working up loads for each and have met with recent success... success for me is a 5 shot group in less than 1.5" @ 100 yds... each rifle will do this with 4 running under 0.75", I'm assuming the flier is shooter error(best was out of Rem 788 with 4 in one ragged hole (0.472) with last shot a flier blowing group to 1.314. Best so far out of Ruger 77 was 4 in 0.642", fifth grew group to 1.216")... the mold casts @ .433 and I size to .432... haven't had a chance to shoot them at longer distance yet.. I just got the mold a couple months ago and have been working on the "project"... I finished working up loads in 0.2 gr increments and was surprised to see how 0.2 gr of powder affected the group sizes and point of impact.. it was an eye opener.
Hope to test them on Hoosier deer this fall.

TheMoose

[RobS]

The only problem I have with the WFN and WLN designs from LBT is they have a meplat of .360 (80% of .454) and .340 (80% of .430) witch everyone but 44 man and Veral Smith says they have trouble with accuracy at longer ranges, however not a lot of people have mentioned actual numbers when they refer to "longer range". On this posting Blammer says he believes 100 yd, starts breaking down accuracy at 100yds, I've heard this a lot.
Jim says he gets accuracy out to 4 and 500 yd along with Veral Smith.
As many times as I have seen this question asked rarely does anyone specify a distance by saying XXX yds. Do you see why I am concerned and wonder what is going on?.


I've shot LBT's and it depends on what application you are looking at. From a revolver the LFN and WFN designs from 0-35 yards are equal regarding accuracy. Obviously the WFN will have a larger wound channel and if that is an absolute to a person’s intent the WFN will be a direction that such person gravitates towards. When an individual starts to extend distances with a revolver, or even a lever action for that matter, one may see a bit of accuracy fall off with the WFN design at 50 yards and as the bullet reaches out further say at 100 yards there becomes a greater chance for this design to lack on accuracy. One thing for sure the LFN design will give better trajectory at the longer ranges vs a WFN (a ballistic turd so to speak) so that is something to consider as well when deciding on bullet design.

It's there regarding "long range" and yes you can have accuracy with WFN designs and it helps to shoot them at higher velocities as Jim does and with a faster twist rate as felix mentioned.

[44man]

A lot of truth said.
The biggest problem with any heavy boolit is when a guy wants to shoot them with a pinch of Unique or Bullseye. He wants a big heavy boolit to use as a plinking load or to avoid recoil.
Twist will not support that.
Even the 1 in 20" twist of a Ruger .44 will shoot heavy boolits if you get around 1335 fps but it just will not work at 800 fps.
The Ruger 1 in 16" on the .45 is at home with heavy boolits but again, not at 800 fps, you need a little over 1100.
If you want light loads, use a different boolit.
BFR's have faster rates then any other revolvers and have proven to be the easiest guns to use a whole mess of different boolits from. You do not have to get carried away with speed and pressures.
If you want an eye opener with a .454, try a BFR with a 1 in 20" twist over the Ruger and Freedom 1 in 24". Then cut down .460 brass so you can use a LPM primer and you will be in hog heaven.

[44man]

Not that I know of. Anything in my post is stuff I've said for several years. Could it be YOU are agreeing with ME?:veryconfu
No, Bret, I am 56 years ahead of you with revolvers. I was shooting 1" targets at 100 with a model 27 back in 1954 and was shooting 400 yards and farther with a .44 back in 56 and 57. I took hair off a running chuck at 500 yards, off hand with my Ruger flat top.
But no matter, I have found BETTER accuracy since the early 80's. However my vision is not what it was either. Being 72-1/2 has it's down points.
The revolver has been a life long passion for me, not just another gun. Rifles have come and gone but every second of every day has been devoted to the revolver even when other work needs done.
I am not a trick shot or much better then some here, I just want my revolvers to shoot as good as they can.
Yes, more and more, I see you repeating what I have said. Not a bad thing at all, you might be learning!
Well--A trick shot long ago, maybe. I could stand up a line of penny's and shoot them off so fast with my Mark I you would be amazed. I could throw a bottle as far and hard as I could with my right hand, grab the Ruger out of my left hand and break the bottle. I could take a pellet gun, remove the sights and flip a washer in the air with tape over the hole and put a pellet through the tape. I shot starlings off poles at 50 to 70 yards with that pellet gun with no sights. I NEVER missed with a shotgun no matter how anyone could throw a clay. 100 out of 100 was common. I would shoot bird after bird off wires at 80 yards with the little Ruger .22 Mark I. I head shot thousands of squirrels with my Ruger .22's. I head shot chucks farther then 600 yards with my model 70, 220 Swift. That rifle put 5 shots in 1/4" at 350 yards.
I have been a gunsmith most of my life, building muzzle loaders and custom rifles and making guns accurate.
You have no idea, not an inkling of what I was doing. It is all gone now of course, but revolver accuracy has never gone away. It is one gun I never put up because of the challenge.
This is one of my rifles, built from a maple plank. I make all the parts except the butt plate, trigger guard, barrel and lock. If you can't center a pop can at 75 yards off hand with this flintlock, you are a boob.

[44man]

Bret, how about one of my custom Swedes?
Cherry wood chainsawed after it fell in my woods. This will do 1/2" at 100 all day.
I consider you a young pup that is just learning.

[WARD O]

Themoose
Are you finding much variation between rifle reguarding favorite powder charge? I have been trying to get some of those 280 gr LBT WFN shooting in a Marlin and have been achieving marginal success.

Ward

[Themoose]

Ward O,

Yes, there is a difference in preferences...I'm not shooting the WFN, but the LFN... the Remington 788's top load so far is 23.8 Gr. of H110... Ruger 77's top performer is 22.6 Gr. H110, closely followed by 23.2 gr. H110... I test in 0.2 gr increments and have noticed a large difference in both group sizes and points of impact with this small of a change... I use different brass for each rifle... I use R-P for the Remington, and Starline Nickel plated for the Ruger so that I can keep the two loads separate... there is a difference in case capacity... Out of curiosity I tried the top load for each rifle in the other and did not get acceptable performance. Hope this helps..

TheMoose

[felix]

Moose, try a different powder speed. A primer change with the same powder. Objective would be to get the best AVERAGE accuracy from the two guns. The assumption is these two guns are play guns (hunting guns), and not for competition. ... felix

[WARD O]

TheMoose
Have you ever tried the Federal 150 non mag primer - from what I've seen it is the primer Federal Cartridge uses in all of their 44 magnum premium hunting ammunition. It might be worth a try.

Ward

[Changeling]

First off, Rob I'm sincerely sorry for mixing your great comment with Blammers. I assure you it was just a mistake on my part!

There was some good information as usual from many of you, I need to think about things said here and possibly look at things from a different perspective. Hell I might even just design my own bullet for the 45LC, if I can't come up with what I want. I'm sure there are a couple who will think this hilarious, but I have been giving it some thought for a couple of weeks now.

44Man thanks for your input, that is one beautiful ML rifle.

[44man]

Themoose
Are you finding much variation between rifle reguarding favorite powder charge? I have been trying to get some of those 280 gr LBT WFN shooting in a Marlin and have been achieving marginal success.

Ward
Don't expect much from the Marlin, stupid, way out of range, idiotic, 1 in 38" twist. That rifle should be 1 in 20" and at the very most, 1 in 25". I wonder what 1 in 18" would do?

[RobS]

Changeling: My intent wasn't to come down on you, but rather a post to reiterate what I had posted earlier. I feel where you are coming from as I have played with different bullet designs along with different weights and with different alloy hardness and/or alloy content. Additionally there are the primers, powders, crimp dies, expander dies, different bullet diameters and so forth until a person goes half mad. I can see where if you don't have a big wad of cash floating around, that you would rather prefer to head this beast off at the pass and get yourself a mold that will have the best chances of working for your intended application. No harm in that, no harm at all. :)

[MT Gianni]

To the best of my knowledge the heaviest boolit Keiith designed was the 250 gr 454424.

[healey55]

On the 280 LFN for the 44.. What is the nose length from crimp grove to flat? What is the overall length?

[healey55]

Ooops.. I meant to say what is the nose length from crimp grove to flat on the LBT 250 LFN.

If I understand the catalouge right it is somewhere between 0.35-0.40?

[Thumbcocker]

Rifle porn from .44man. Will wonders never cease. Them is some purty long guns.

[Themoose]

Ward O and Felix,

I haven't tried to change any of the components until I had a measure of success tweaking the other variables.. I do inend to try Federal primers, actually that is all that I used to use until I got a super deal on 5M Winchester primers... as far as they are "play" guns used for hunting... that is correct to a point.. any who know me that I take my deer hunting very seriously... I work on my equipment all year long and am always experiementing to try to get it to be the best that I can have(within my financial means)... (I also cast my own sabot slugs and build my own arrows)...

Felix, I'm not sure that I completely understand your point entirely, but I would prefer not to compromise with the accuracy potential of each rifle... one has a short carbine barrel and the other a full length tube...I'm not worried at this point about mixing ammo for them if I keep to my initial plan on using nickel plated for the stainless rifle and regular brass for the blued one.

I threw myself a curveball this weekend... just after I shot my best group with the 788... I had a couple of rounds hang up in the clip due to the length and on the next reloading session I adjusted the seating stem ever so slightly... I completely forgot about it until I went back on paper @ 100yds... my super load was all of a sudden super bad!... went back to my previous method of working up loads by increasing powder in 0.2gr increments... found that lower charge(0.3gr less) grouped the best... chronograph captured 4 of the 5 shots for avg of 1769 fps.. with extreme spread of 20 fps...

Next step will be to try Fed 155 and 150 Primers...

Thanks for your advice fellas.

TheMoose